Outdoor News Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking
- Thread starter FishTales1
- Start date
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Just playing the devil's advocate but IF, the concern REALLY & TRULY financial & about excessive expenditures...
How much do stream surveys cost?
We all know they are not done annually on every stream and IF they were, how much would that add to the PFBC budget to make it happen?
I ask because IF a plan that eliminated stocking on all Natural Reproduction Streams (as advocated by some) was implemented and managed legitimately; how would the PFBC know that a Class A - D stream is still a Class A - D stream and illegible for stocking without annual surveys?
In addition, this would have to include all sections not just the listed A - D sections and all Class E streams & sections as well in the event they became Class D or higher.
Bottom line, there might be a reduction stocking costs, but I have to believe considerable additional expenses would be incurred to make sure the cessation of stocking was based on biology, not BS.
As someone who regularly donates money to the PFBC CAP Program I can tell you there ARE PFBC monies spent on acquisition.
However you can only acquire easements where & when available. That means, take them where you can get them which is often NOT trout streams on private property and often access in places I'll never fish.
That doesn't make the program unappealing to me, but I'm sure many folks won't donate because they want their money pointed at their priorities...
How much do stream surveys cost?
We all know they are not done annually on every stream and IF they were, how much would that add to the PFBC budget to make it happen?
I ask because IF a plan that eliminated stocking on all Natural Reproduction Streams (as advocated by some) was implemented and managed legitimately; how would the PFBC know that a Class A - D stream is still a Class A - D stream and illegible for stocking without annual surveys?
In addition, this would have to include all sections not just the listed A - D sections and all Class E streams & sections as well in the event they became Class D or higher.
Bottom line, there might be a reduction stocking costs, but I have to believe considerable additional expenses would be incurred to make sure the cessation of stocking was based on biology, not BS.
As someone who regularly donates money to the PFBC CAP Program I can tell you there ARE PFBC monies spent on acquisition.
However you can only acquire easements where & when available. That means, take them where you can get them which is often NOT trout streams on private property and often access in places I'll never fish.
That doesn't make the program unappealing to me, but I'm sure many folks won't donate because they want their money pointed at their priorities...
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Well there is a two part thing going on here.
You don't need to do constant surveys of streams in the now to determine what is right. The Data we have is enough to know which ones we shouldn't and which ones we should. Lord knows there is a massive amount of it at the archives.
There are streams fit for stocking, they are obvious. There are streams not fit for stocking, they too are obvious.
Until that balance gets a bit more in line with financial restraints and also biological assessments, we really don't have to worry about the devil's advocate scenario.
But regardless, a lot of surveys are done year in and out, I don't see why more would need to be added.
You don't need to do constant surveys of streams in the now to determine what is right. The Data we have is enough to know which ones we shouldn't and which ones we should. Lord knows there is a massive amount of it at the archives.
There are streams fit for stocking, they are obvious. There are streams not fit for stocking, they too are obvious.
Until that balance gets a bit more in line with financial restraints and also biological assessments, we really don't have to worry about the devil's advocate scenario.
But regardless, a lot of surveys are done year in and out, I don't see why more would need to be added.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
That's IF you use "no stocking of Class A's" as the criteria (which I totally support) because it isn't likely a stream section would go from A to E in a year or two barring a catastrophic event.
However, when you roll in ANY wild trout stream or section into the mix which IS advocated by some folks on PAFF...
Is it fair to the folks that don't hang their head in shame fishing for stockers if the PFBC goes with "historic" wild trout lists that include Class C & D sections that haven't been surveyed in 20+ years??
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have Class A & Natural Reproduction Lists going back many years. One thing I can tell you with certainty is even with limited resurveys, there ARE subtractions to those lists.
However, when you roll in ANY wild trout stream or section into the mix which IS advocated by some folks on PAFF...
Is it fair to the folks that don't hang their head in shame fishing for stockers if the PFBC goes with "historic" wild trout lists that include Class C & D sections that haven't been surveyed in 20+ years??
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have Class A & Natural Reproduction Lists going back many years. One thing I can tell you with certainty is even with limited resurveys, there ARE subtractions to those lists.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Yeah and constant editions.
Again, it is very easy to determine a stream with limited to no reproduction.
It really isn't that hard, and historically, for a long time past, and for a long time after today, if not forever, are suitable for the stocked trout program.
Just like it isn't that hard to know historically, for a long time past, and a long time after today, if not forever, ones that are not suitable for stocking.
Again, it is very easy to determine a stream with limited to no reproduction.
It really isn't that hard, and historically, for a long time past, and for a long time after today, if not forever, are suitable for the stocked trout program.
Just like it isn't that hard to know historically, for a long time past, and a long time after today, if not forever, ones that are not suitable for stocking.
Last edited:
RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov
Will this email work for sending comments on the proposed stocking changes? The link sent by PA Trout goes through outlook and I don't have outlook!
Will this email work for sending comments on the proposed stocking changes? The link sent by PA Trout goes through outlook and I don't have outlook!
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,489
What is the link?
A link I found on the PFBC website.
It looks like it is the same email PA Trout's email link led me to. The problem was it made you open outlook so I found the link I posted above on the commission's website. I guess I could have right-clicked and copied the email originally.
For what it's worth to add to these posts, most seemingly cover the different aspects of stocking and protecting and enhancing wild and native populations of trout.
Up until the 1980s, many local deputy wardens who don't get paid, would go to each landowner along a stream in attempts to keep streams open to the public for trout season.
Many would show up at heavily overstocked "pools" and throw bread slices and pieces into the water to see how many would boil up for the food.
The season started at 5 a.m.. It was always crowded and depending on the approval of the landowner pit fires and overnight camping was permitted.
Wardens worked 7/24/365 up until a lawsuit required the Pa Fish Commission to pay based on 8-hour per day-pay.
At the same time, landownership began changing quickly with townspeople and "developers" buying farms and lands with the streams flowing through and they shut down public access and thus stocking.
The fishing populations began going down. The situation and environment changed dramatically.
But eventually, the cost of buying a license didn't cover the cost of stocking.
As well, the studies affirmed that stocked trout damage wild populations. The stockies eat the food. Maybe introduce disease?
Anyway, the changes in housing expansions and a totally new artificial world of entertainment took lots of miles off the public fishing mileage.
Further, thanks to public entertainment and law enforcement requirements, it was determined that some agency should take over pursuing DUI with boating population.
State police or Fish Commission?
It went with the Fish Commission to become the Fish and Boat Commission. There some great changes made during that period. Doing the boating DUI enforcement does generate funding to pay for enforcement and other modern requirements that cost additional funds.
However, the severe reduction in mileage open to the public for stream fishing in April reduced the sales of licenses.
(Also, prior to DUI, it was common for guys to retreat from the creek to a social beverage drinking establishment. It was more or less expected behavior.)
But I did notice and was told that some stream side landowners complained because "their" stream was no longer being stocked.
For example, in the Middlecreek Gamelands in Lancaster County border, Seglock Creek flows as a small stream with wild browns and some brookies.
It would get pounded by Opening Day and first week crowds when it was a stocked stream.
A landowner who used their property along the stream as a close-to-home weekend "camp" complained to me about there no longer being any trout in the stream.
I flyfished it all year after the first week and would catch natives and wild, but the populations and sizes improved quickly and greatly after the cessation of stocking.
But the value of the streams disappeared to the landowners I talked to.
Further, so much farmland was purchased and streams were troughed and homes and huge product distribution centers and other change of land use has done more than anything to destroy the function and quality of surface flows through residential properties.
Stocking now has been largely changed to stocking eating-bred trout, mostly food rainbows, into bodies of water that are expected to NOT support a trout population after May or so. Public ponds and easy place to take the kids to cast Walmart purchased trout baits and bobbers.
The PFBC has to remain separated from the political arena.
Political influence is already enough to effect certain stockings.
The biggest modern problem, from this perspective, is that environmental protections have been removed from a variety and a number of surface flows.
The state Department of Environmental Protection does stream monitoring. Maybe the rate the DEP used to test waters has decreased and the interim is short. It used to be regular practice to test water quality every 10 years.
Cynically, DEP may have removed some native brook trout streams from the fish protection requirements because having to protect wild trout populations is too expensive for a business to conduct.
Up until the 1980s, many local deputy wardens who don't get paid, would go to each landowner along a stream in attempts to keep streams open to the public for trout season.
Many would show up at heavily overstocked "pools" and throw bread slices and pieces into the water to see how many would boil up for the food.
The season started at 5 a.m.. It was always crowded and depending on the approval of the landowner pit fires and overnight camping was permitted.
Wardens worked 7/24/365 up until a lawsuit required the Pa Fish Commission to pay based on 8-hour per day-pay.
At the same time, landownership began changing quickly with townspeople and "developers" buying farms and lands with the streams flowing through and they shut down public access and thus stocking.
The fishing populations began going down. The situation and environment changed dramatically.
But eventually, the cost of buying a license didn't cover the cost of stocking.
As well, the studies affirmed that stocked trout damage wild populations. The stockies eat the food. Maybe introduce disease?
Anyway, the changes in housing expansions and a totally new artificial world of entertainment took lots of miles off the public fishing mileage.
Further, thanks to public entertainment and law enforcement requirements, it was determined that some agency should take over pursuing DUI with boating population.
State police or Fish Commission?
It went with the Fish Commission to become the Fish and Boat Commission. There some great changes made during that period. Doing the boating DUI enforcement does generate funding to pay for enforcement and other modern requirements that cost additional funds.
However, the severe reduction in mileage open to the public for stream fishing in April reduced the sales of licenses.
(Also, prior to DUI, it was common for guys to retreat from the creek to a social beverage drinking establishment. It was more or less expected behavior.)
But I did notice and was told that some stream side landowners complained because "their" stream was no longer being stocked.
For example, in the Middlecreek Gamelands in Lancaster County border, Seglock Creek flows as a small stream with wild browns and some brookies.
It would get pounded by Opening Day and first week crowds when it was a stocked stream.
A landowner who used their property along the stream as a close-to-home weekend "camp" complained to me about there no longer being any trout in the stream.
I flyfished it all year after the first week and would catch natives and wild, but the populations and sizes improved quickly and greatly after the cessation of stocking.
But the value of the streams disappeared to the landowners I talked to.
Further, so much farmland was purchased and streams were troughed and homes and huge product distribution centers and other change of land use has done more than anything to destroy the function and quality of surface flows through residential properties.
Stocking now has been largely changed to stocking eating-bred trout, mostly food rainbows, into bodies of water that are expected to NOT support a trout population after May or so. Public ponds and easy place to take the kids to cast Walmart purchased trout baits and bobbers.
The PFBC has to remain separated from the political arena.
Political influence is already enough to effect certain stockings.
The biggest modern problem, from this perspective, is that environmental protections have been removed from a variety and a number of surface flows.
The state Department of Environmental Protection does stream monitoring. Maybe the rate the DEP used to test waters has decreased and the interim is short. It used to be regular practice to test water quality every 10 years.
Cynically, DEP may have removed some native brook trout streams from the fish protection requirements because having to protect wild trout populations is too expensive for a business to conduct.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,489
If it shows the email address just copy it into a new email in the email app of your choosing.
